Only a percentage of COVID-19 patients develop thrombotic complications. We hypothesized that genetic profiles may explain part of the inter-individual differences. Our goal was to evaluate the genotypic distribution of targeted DNA polymorphisms in COVID-19 patients complicated (PE+) or not (PE−) by pulmonary embolism. We designed a retrospective observational study enrolling N = 94 consecutive patients suffering severe COVID-19 with pulmonary embolism (PE+, N = 47) or not (PE−, N = 47) during hospitalization. A panel of N = 13 prothrombotic DNA polymorphisms (FV R506Q and H1299R, FII G20210A, MTHFR C677T and A1298C, CBS 844ins68, PAI-1 4G/5G, GPIIIa HPA-1 a/b, ACE I/D, AGT T9543C, ATR-1 A1166C, FGB − 455G > A, FXIII103G > T) and N = 2 lipid metabolism-related DNA polymorphisms (APOE T 112C and T158C) were investigated using Reverse Dot Blot technique. Then, we investigated possible associations between genotypic subclasses and demographic, clinical, and laboratory parameters including age, obesity, smoking, pro-inflammatory cytokines, drug therapy, and biomarkers of thrombotic risk such as D-dimer (DD). We found that 58.7% of PE+ had homozygous mutant D/D genotype at ACE I/D locus vs. PE− (40.4%) and 87% of PE+ had homozygous mutant C/C genotype at APOE T158C locus vs. PE− (68.1%). In PE+ group, DD levels were significantly higher in D/D and I/D genotypes at ACE I/D locus (P = 0.00066 and P = 0.00023, respectively) and in C/C and T/C genotypes at APOE T158C locus (P = 1.6e−06 and P = 0.0012, respectively) than PE− group. For the first time, we showed significant associations between higher DD levels and ACE I/D and APOE T158C polymorphisms in PE+ vs. PE− patients suggesting potential useful biomarkers of poor clinical outcome.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.